Translations: Ralph Lataster's article and review by Norman Fenton et al

PROOF! Excess mortality caused by COVID vaccines, not just COVID or lockdowns

Raphael Lataster (BPharm, PhD) - February 16, 20261Original article Ralph Lataster

An article has just been published by Sage, one of the top five academic publishers, which not only points out the strange phenomenon of excess mortality and how this is linked to the COVID-19 vaccination programme, but also all but proves that the vaccine plays a role in this, by explaining that governments are already recognizing deaths caused by COVID-19 vaccines, but also - and even more satisfyingly - rules out the typical alternative explanations of COVID-19 itself and the lockdowns, through an ecological study focusing on four Australian regions. Source.

This is my article on the high number of deaths in Australia that I have already referenced a few times, inspired by the curious statements made by officials in 2021 about Australian hospitals at capacity, even in areas largely unaffected by COVID-19, and subsequent data indicating that the injection causes a lot of cardiovascular problems and other side effects causes.

There are basically two arguments in the article, one fast and cheap, the other much more satisfying. The short argument is that since health officials have admitted that there have been deaths from the COVID-19 vaccine, deaths that were of course unexpected and premature, it is clear that the vaccines are contributing to our excess mortality problem. This is beyond dispute. We can debate the magnitude of it. The bigger argument is my own ecological study.

Four Australian states and territories are central here. All have experienced additional deaths during the pandemic. It struck me that, no doubt partly due to the country's relative isolation and natural ocean boundaries, in the regions of Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory, deaths from COVID-19 only became a (relatively) major problem from 2022 onwards. For example, in 2020, the crucial pandemic year before the vaccines arrived, there were no COVID-19 deaths in the Northern Territory, and in 2021 there were as many as 2 COVID-19 deaths, which was a very small proportion of the total excess deaths, with double digits of COVID-19 deaths in subsequent years (see image below). In fact, in WA, COVID-19 deaths dropped to *zero* from 2020 to 2021, before skyrocketing again in 2022, when everyone was supposedly 'protected' by the vaccines. Strange, right?

Also in these four regions, unlike the situation in Sydney and Melbourne, any lockdowns were usually of very short duration and medical appointments were still possible. Interestingly, like the rest of the country, almost everyone has received their COVID-19 vaccination in 2021. Do you remember all those studies into excess mortality, where some (including myself with my research into Europe) wondered whether the injection might have played a role? Those who find that possibility too unpleasant often point fingers at COVID-19 itself, or at the lockdowns. Blaming COVID-19 is risky because we would have to have significantly underestimated the number of COVID-19 deaths, when the evidence indicates just the opposite, that the number of COVID-19 deaths has been inflated, partly because it very usual was over to call every death surrounding a positive case a 'COVID-19 death' (see also our FOI request on whether a COVID-19 death occurred in a vaccinated or unvaccinated person). And blaming the lockdowns is simply strange, given that the same people who gave us the jab, often mandatorily, have also locked us down. Either way, they would be responsible for these deaths.

But that's all irrelevant here because we can rule out COVID-19 and the lockdowns for these Australian regions.

It's the pricks. If these regions have seen a rise in deaths along with mass vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccines, and they haven't really had a COVID-19 problem or the kind of lockdowns that could cause widespread health crises, then it's clear that the jab – which has already been recognized by Australian and other governments as causing deaths – has an important role to play. I review much of the evidence indicating that this hypothesis is not only possible and plausible, but probable – much of which will already be familiar to OTN readers:

• JECP4. The exaggerated estimates of the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of the jabs in observational studies and clinical trials. More people notice this. Related research shows that most vaccines showed no benefit in terms of COVID-19 mortality in their own trials, highlights the effect of the healthy-vaccine effect (meaning these exaggerations are even greater) and points out that there may have been fraud in the 'Pfizer study'.
• Negative effectiveness. It sounds completely absurd, but there is quite a bit of evidence that the shots actually increase the risk of COVID-19 infection/hospitalization/death, and this has even been discussed in important scientific journals.
• Cardiovascular side effects. Too much to go into, but the idea that they are all transient is ridiculous. Don't even forget that the risk of myocarditis alone outweighs the benefits in healthy children. Maybe even more than that? Let's not forget that either Pfizer still trying to find out “whether COMIRNATY is safe and effective, and whether there is an association with myocarditis/pericarditis that should be noted,” God bless them.
• Cancer. Studies have been done on this an increase in cancer among vaccinated people and the link between vaccination and certain forms of cancer. And when experts realized that there are mechanistic links between cancer and COVID-19, I said so the same links exist between cancer and COVID-19 vaccines. Also remember that the conspiracy theory about DNA contamination turned out to be true, which increases the risk of oncogenicity. There even exists any suspicion that such research is suppressed.
• It is abundantly clear that the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines are being underestimated. Have leading doctors has spoken out about this and a recent research confirmed this virtually.
• The highly influential study by Watson et al., which absurdly claims that the jabs saved tens of millions of lives in just one year, has been thoroughly debunked, both directly (with criticism at the FDA and the US Senate) as indirect (and from the attached comments it appears that this did not go far enough). Also several other model studies be debunked.
• Both the American as the Australian (source) government have acknowledged that the COVID-19 vaccines have killed people. In the United Kingdom the situation is much the same. No wonder authorities are starting to scale back their vaccination recommendations and even acknowledge it for some the risks outweigh the benefits. It also seems very suspicious that the British government apparently refused data that could establish a link between the COVID-19 vaccine and the number of additional deaths.
• Returning to the strange phenomenon of (especially post-pandemic) excess deaths (when we should actually see negative excess deaths), there is quite a bit of catching up to do. As early as 2022 goods experts and reporters working on it discussing these unlikely findings, with some wondering if the lampreys were responsible. The suspicions stayed also in 2023 rear its head, with some noting that vaccinated people were sometimes overrepresented in COVID-19 and overall deaths. In 2024 it was even included in an article in the magazine Lancet addressed this issue. Governments and scientists were researching this issue, and I too joined the discussion and noted that the less vaccinated countries in Europe have fewer problems seemed to have. I addressed the only published criticism of that article in 2025, noting: "Given the size, power and funding of the group of researchers advocating for the effectiveness and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, it is astonishing how sparse and poor their responses to more critical research are. We should expect better."
• There's more. Perhaps that is why even a US government under Biden, without RFK Jr. was involved, acknowledged that they had done so much wrong regarding the pandemic, also in the field of vaccines.

So there you have it. And I think I have found the same phenomenon (excess mortality alongside COVID-19 vaccination, where the excuses of COVID-19 and lockdown are untenable) in other parts of the world, such as the US and Asia, but that will have to wait a while. I'm quite tired now.

TL;DR: In four Australian regions, excess deaths in 2021 rose in parallel with the use of COVID-19 vaccines, while there wasn't really a major COVID-19 or lockdown problem. This adds to mounting evidence that the jabs are a very bad idea.

Commentary on Ralph Lataster's article in the International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine

Martin Neil, Norman Fenton and Jonathan Engler - February 24, 2026

Ralph Lataster of the University of Sydney recently published one article in the International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine about the high number of deaths in Australia.

In his article he concluded:

“Combined with mounting evidence that the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines have been grossly overstated, including admissions from the Australian and US governments that several deaths have been caused by the vaccines, these findings make it virtually certain that COVID-19 vaccines have contributed – and continue to contribute – to excess mortality.”

His analysis focused on four regions: Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. He says these regions didn't have a "Covid problem" and didn't do much in the way of lockdowns, making them as close to a control group for the rest of Australia as possible (bearing in mind that Australia was notorious for some of the strictest lockdowns during the so-called pandemic).

In its substack, 'Okay the News', he says:

“… undoubtedly partly due to the country's relative isolation and natural ocean boundaries, deaths from COVID-19 in the regions of Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory only became a (relatively) major problem from 2022.”

He looks at the mortality patterns in these areas during that period and concludes:

" De gebruikelijke verklaringen met betrekking tot COVID-19 en lockdowns geven geen adequate verklaring voor de omvang van de oversterfte in verschillende regio's van Australië in 2021. Aangezien deze regio's in 2021 net zo snel en grondig hebben gevaccineerd als de rest van het land, en er in de literatuur steeds meer bewijs wordt gepubliceerd dat de vaccins ernstige bijwerkingen en zelfs de dood veroorzaken, staat het buiten kijf dat massale vaccinatie met COVID-19-vaccins ten minste gedeeltelijk verantwoordelijk is voor de oversterfte. Er is dringend meer onderzoek nodig, wellicht gericht op de algemene gezondheid en sterfte van gevaccineerden (inclusief COVID-19-sterfte) in vergelijking met niet-gevaccineerden.

The difference in mortality between 2020 and 2022 in Australia is shocking:

In 2020 we have a negative excess of deaths (during a global pandemic), but in 2022, after the vaccine rollout, there is an 11.7% surplus. Note that the excess deaths in 2022 were significantly higher than the number of COVID deaths.

The COVID mortality rates for the Northern Territory are representative of all Australian states with low lockdowns and few COVID cases. There were no COVID deaths in 2020, but in 2022 there was a nearly 20% surplus.

The vast majority of eligible Northern Territory residents aged 16 and over had received at least one dose of COVID vaccine by the end of 2021, at 89.3%. This high vaccination rate was more or less the same across Australia.

He then points out that:

“Given the period 2020-2021, when excess mortality increased in the four regions, COVID-19 mortality decreased, which strongly suggests that COVID-19 is not the cause, making it relatively likely that COVID-19 measures underlie the increase in excess mortality in 2021.”

Astute readers will recall that we conducted a mortality analysis in December 2022 that included Australia: The Devil's Advocate: An Exploratory Analysis of 2022 Excess Mortality.

(I also thought Australia was an interesting case before, see here and here - Red.)

In our study we compared global COVID cases with excess mortality, which found they varied:

At that time we came to the (provisional) conclusion that the vaccines were responsible for this. We are therefore very pleased that Lataster's analysis supports our conclusions²Our study looked at mortality rates worldwide and included long-term COVID and health infrastructure as possible determinants of excess mortality. But we found that the vaccines were the most likely cause. confirms that his work has been published.

This is all very good news and Lataster deserves a lot of credit for his perseverance and hard work in getting this published. But...

The problem is much deeper

Lataster rightly points out that the number of COVID deaths has been inflated:

“Blaming COVID-19 is risky because we would have to have significantly underestimated the number of COVID-19 deaths, when the evidence indicates just the opposite, that COVID-19 deaths have been inflated...”

To call this an understatement is putting it mildly. Our position is clear: there was no unique 'Covid disease', no truly new virus and no pandemic in the sense we were told. What unfolded was driven by flawed science, questionable statistics, and testing practices that shaped the story instead of clarifying it.

If there really was a pandemic sweeping the world, why was COVID almost non-existent in remote and isolated regions of Australia? And why did some densely populated parts of Europe – with Northern Ireland as a prime example – also experience minimal impacts? These are not marginal locations; these are large population groups that simply did not fit into the story³Lees: The latest data from Northern Ireland casts further doubt on the 'official' Covid story..

The assumption behind the 'remote Australia' statement is that isolation has protected these areas in 2020. But if isolation was the magic shield, it should also have stopped influenza. Was that the case?

According to FluNet, the flu is expected to have disappeared from Australia in mid-2020 and remained absent throughout 2021. Yet all the while, Australians continued to search Google for information about flu. Why would people look up a virus that had supposedly disappeared from the country?

The inconsistencies speak for themselves.

This was not an unusual pattern, as the flu would have disappeared worldwide, as we see in this article and in other items report.

Read Finding flu is easy, just search for it on Google!

What was actually spreading was the suppression and manipulation of flu tests and statistics.

There is evidence of widespread manipulation of the causes of mortality from respiratory diseases, as reported here: The riddle of respiratory disease mortality in Australia in 2020.

In 2020, deaths from influenza and pneumonia in Australia were around 60% of 2019 figures. So yes, 2020 seemed like a 'good' year for respiratory infections compared to 2019, which was unusually bad. But even during the Covid period, people still died from diseases that fall under the categories of influenza and pneumonia, and not all of those deaths were classified as Covid.

What's striking is this: although Australia reported extremely low levels of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, the overall death rate from influenza and pneumonia barely changed. At the same time, the percentage of pneumonia deaths attributed to an 'unknown' cause increased from an already high 70% in 2019 to 94% in 2020.

That of course raises questions. Why would classifying pneumonia cases suddenly be more difficult in 2020 than in 2019? And if flu and SARS-CoV-2 were supposedly not circulating, why were pneumonia rates so similar in both years?

This is where the story becomes contradictory. We're told lockdowns and border controls kept Australia 'safe' from SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 - effectively shutting down the country. Yet somehow flu and pneumonia remained virtually unchanged. So did the restrictions work for one virus and not for another? That's not right.

Australia's pneumonia death rates in 2020 also closely matched those in the US and UK. That consistency suggests there was no dramatic shift in overall mortality from respiratory disease – and it calls into question the idea that 2020 was an acute and unique respiratory crisis in each of those countries.

It's also worth remembering that hospital testing practices have changed during the pandemic. In several countries – including the US, UK, Germany and Australia – routine flu testing was scaled back or deprioritized. This inevitably affected the way respiratory diseases were classified.

It gets worse. The way Australia calculated the number of excess deaths was manipulated, as reported here: Manipulation of mortality rates. In this article we wrote:

"We zien hetzelfde in Australië, waar men het aantal extra sterfgevallen in 2022 schat op basis van 2017-2019 en 2021, maar 2020 niet meerekent. Maar in Australië was 2020 eigenlijk een normaal jaar, ondanks het feit dat het Australische Bureau voor de Statistiek verklaarde: “2020 is buiten beschouwing gelaten omdat het niet leek op een typisch sterftejaar.” Door een jaar mee te nemen dat hoger is dan verwacht en een normaal jaar buiten beschouwing te laten, wordt het overschot gemanipuleerd om kleiner te lijken."

(Note: we recognize this as the method used in the Netherlands)

To say that the baseline numbers for excess deaths were “expected” is an understatement. Those basic figures were adjusted in a way that made the situation look more favorable than it actually was.

When the actual number of excess deaths from Australian Bureau of Statistics data is compared with that of previous decades, the signal of excess mortality in 2022 is staggering:
(This graph was prepared in 2023 in collaboration with Clare Pain and was used on truck side advertising in Australia to draw public attention to the vaccine's effects on mortality.)

For a long time, anyone who wanted to publish anything about Covid had to buy into the full package: the vaccines were safe and effective, and Covid itself had to be treated as an indisputable reality, although variations around the appropriateness of the 'response' and the level of the 'threat' were allowed, provided the existence of some threat was not completely denied. That was the ticket.

Now the landscape has changed. It has become acceptable to criticize the Covid vaccines, but only if you don't question the underlying Covid narrative itself. While the label “anti-vaccination activist” may be starting to become acceptable, it is still taboo to be seen as a “Covid denier.”

Two later paragraphs of Lataster's article show exactly how this pressure works. He still agrees with two important pillars of the current story: the central role of the spike protein and the idea that different 'variants' had different effects on mortality. Whether he does this voluntarily or because it is the only way to get published, the result is the same: the boundaries of the story remain firmly in place.

Lataster notes that medical authorities might be tempted to argue that:

"misschien is de eenvoudigste en meest plausibele verklaring dat vrijwel alle extra sterfgevallen covid-sterfgevallen zijn, die op de een of andere manier zijn onderschat".

What perpetuates this whole argument is the idea that the spike protein is some kind of hidden, insidious threat – dangerous no matter how it enters the body, via a virus or a vaccine. By that logic, almost everyone has been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, even if they didn't notice it. It then follows that this silent exposure was the real cause of later illness, with the supposed excess mortality only becoming visible over time.

It's a useful story – having your cake and eating it.

But is the spike protein really the culprit?⁴For an in-depth analysis of the scientific ignorance behind these views on the spike protein, see this article.? We have previously argued that there is nothing particularly alarming about the spike protein, or any other component of SARS-CoV-25Research into the origin of viruses and the (claimed) Gain of Function.

In reality, there is nothing new or risky about SARS-CoV-2 at all, and it can be coherently argued that it is not a 'thing' at all, but simply an artificial sequence.

On the variants side, Lataster makes some interesting points when comparing Bulgaria and Australia – a contrast we also highlighted in our 2022 mortality analysis. He says:

"Although vaccine-related deaths occurred in Bulgaria for several years after the vaccine introduction, the vaccines could have initially saved more lives of Bulgaria's relatively older population. The situation is different in Australia, with its younger population, which is more exposed to the later variants...".

The problem is that the whole story about variants is largely nonsense – they cannot be isolated from a co-evolving viral swarm. Leaning on this only reinforces the broader mythology – the idea that pandemics are inevitable, recurring threats and that a permanent biosecurity framework is needed to manage them.

And of course, this logic lets them off the hook easily. With this framing, they can always claim that the vaccines “worked” – just not under the exact circumstances in which they were deployed. The problem, they will say, was not the product itself, but the timing. Get the vaccines to market faster, tailor them to the supposedly deadly variants, and suddenly the story becomes that countless lives would have been saved.

It's (yet again) a neat way to protect the story and shift responsibility away from the people who put the products on the market.

Footnotes

• 1
  Original article Ralph Lataster
• 2
  Our study looked at mortality rates worldwide and included long-term COVID and health infrastructure as possible determinants of excess mortality. But we found that the vaccines were the most likely cause.
• 3
  Lees: The latest data from Northern Ireland casts further doubt on the 'official' Covid story.
• 4
  For an in-depth analysis of the scientific ignorance behind these views on the spike protein, see this article.
• 5
  Research into the origin of viruses and the (claimed) Gain of Function